www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-241) Is W3C Community Contributor License Agreement a Category-A license?
Date Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:21:41 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15188437#comment-15188437

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-241:

1/ "Who is _you_?"

It does seem weird. It's a CLA, yet it also seems to be a license to users too.

The human readable summary indicates that the community is free to share, modify and implement
the specification. 

The CLA text defines 'you' in 12.9:

    12.9. You or Your. “You,” “you,” or “your” means any person or entity who
exercises copyright or patent rights granted under this CLA, and any person or entity that
person or entity controls.

Given that 'I' is defined (section 12.5) to be the signatory (contributor to W3C in this context),
and 'Project' is defined to be the W3C group who executed the CLA, it seems to imply that
'you' means the users/implementors. 


2/ "What is the license?"

As you point out, the parent document indicates that the 'Open Annotation Core Data Model
Specification' is under this CLA.

Said CLA states: "Any source code created by the Project is not subject to this CLA, but rather
subject to separate licensing terms for that source code". So as long as this is the specification
and not the source code, it seems safe that the CLA is the license in effect.

3/ License Thoughts

* Copyright terms: These seem within the realm of Apache's.
* Patent terms: These are more complex. You give up a patent license on what you contribute,
and what you complete at time of contribution; but then there are a series of tweaks and conditions.
Ones that jump out are:

    12.8.3 May only cover required parts of the specification.
    12.4.2 "not specified in the normative portions". The later definition of normative indicates

    "optional features in the RFC 2119 sense are considered normative unless they are specifically
identified as informative. Implementation examples or any other material that merely illustrate
the requirements of the Specification are informative, rather than normative.". 

    12.8.4 "may be conditioned on a grant of a reciprocal RF license"
    12.8.6 - I flat out don't understand this clause. Does 'licensor issued by licensee for
infringement of claims" mean a instituting patent litigation?
* Limited Opt-Out: A bit odd. Seems that you would not want to use anything from the W3C until
45 days after publication. Also that you should be wary of any specification that took more
than 150 days to create. I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding "any particular Contribution' in
the last sentence as this seems like a very weak aspect of the CLA. 

* Transition to W3C: This references the large 'W3C Patent Policy' and seems to be another
way in which the patent realities of this license would not match the Apache 2.0 text.


Summary - a lot of legal text, very much interested in others' thoughts. 

> Is W3C Community Contributor License Agreement a Category-A license?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-241
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-241
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> In TAVERNA-932 we wonder if our use of https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/0.15.0-incubating/taverna-robundle/src/main/resources/ontologies/oa.rdf
is considered Category-A license.
> Note that the upstream file https://www.w3.org/ns/oa/oa.rdf (which must be fetched with
{{curl -H Accept: application/rdf+xml}}) does not include file-headers - I added those based
on the [parent document|http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/index.html] which
> {quote}
> Copyright © 2012-2013 the Contributors to the Open Annotation Core Data Model Specification,
published by the Open Annotation Community Group under the W3C Community Contributor License
Agreement (CLA). A human-readable summary is available.
> {quote}
> It is a bit unclear what the license for downstream readers actually is, as that [W3C
Community Contributor License Agreement|https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/]
is mainly written for W3C Community Group contributors (which incidentally includes myself).

> However it says contributions include:
> {quote}
> 2. Copyrights.
>     2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, without
any obligation for accounting to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full extent
of my copyright interest in the Contribution.
>     2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must include an attribution
to the Specification in any derivative work you make based on the Specification. That attribution
must include, at minimum, the Specification name and version number.
> {quote}
> which to me sounds like a permissive category-A BSD-like license.
> What is the view of LEGAL?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message